Magee v. Flores et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For A Stay (ECF No. 36 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/25/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

11
12

Plaintiff,

1:11-cv-1239-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A STAY

v.
(ECF No. 36)

13
14

PETER FLORES, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

________________________________/

17

Plaintiff Ruchell Cinque Magee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner who, proceeding pro

18

se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

19

April 20, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it,

20

with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff failed to file an

21

amended complaint within the time allowed, and the Court dismissed his action for failure

22

to state a claim and obey a court order. (ECF Nos. 28 & 32.) Plaintiff appealed the Court’s

23

judgment and his appeal was dismissed. (ECF Nos. 34, 35, 38.)

24

On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for a Stay

25

Pending U.S. House Judiciary Committee Action.” (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff’s motion is

26

relatively incoherent, but is now before the Court.

27

The United States Supreme Court has clearly indicated that “the power to stay

28

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of

1

the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for

2

litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh

3

competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. North America Co., 299

4

U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of

5

establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).

6
7

Even if there remained a pending action which could be stayed, Plaintiff’s motion
identifies no comprehensible justification for such a stay.

8
9

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings
be DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:
il0i0d

March 25, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-